|
Post by djublonskopf on Aug 26, 2011 14:02:02 GMT
Do we have "word of god" that Kat isn't gay? Cuz she totally reads that way, and has for a while now. I don't really care which way Tom goes with this - there's a lot of potential for awesomeness and awkward hilarity either way. On a meta level, I think webcomics are doing a decent job at portraying gay characters. I was going to write how I think gay men are still underrepresented (or when they are present, are only for comic relief), but I think that isn't even so much the case anymore. She's had a (intense) crush one at least one guy, been quite flustered at the sight of another guy shirtless, and had crushes on zero girls so far.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on May 9, 2011 14:52:06 GMT
In other words, Kat is thinking about making a cyborg out of S13. Who seems to be developing a slightly disturbing fixation on her. What could possibly go wrong! People keep saying "cyborg", but I don't think that's it. Kat's previous "exploded diagrams" have been her thinking about how to replicate biology with metal. I don't think she's trying to integrate cells and electronics . . . I think she's trying to make electronics that work like cells do.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Mar 14, 2011 22:47:30 GMT
D: I'll admit, Jack jumped to mind immediately - especially with the little 'clearing throat' gesture at the beginning. Another way to not ingratiate himself to Kat? Jack and Robot's speech bubbles are very similar in color (Robot's has a hue of 120, Jack of 117). This robot's speech bubble, though, isn't quite either one of them (it's 123, closer to Robot than Jack). Which is to say, "maybe".
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Jan 13, 2011 5:01:30 GMT
"You put people in danger" So Jones believes there IS danger here. What kind of danger? Danger enough to warrant a very effective guilt jab. Okay, Eglamore in danger is easy... HUGE FIRE DANGER... assuming Jones knows about that and she should. But everyone at the court? What she did today put everyone in the court in danger.... has the danger passed or are they all still in danger? I know it's similar to what you said . . . but I think the "danger" was telling Coyote something that potentially incendiary. Imagine if Coyote had reacted in anger? Declared war on the Court? Lots of people would have died. Running to the other "side" with news of treason puts people in danger.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Jan 10, 2011 12:55:37 GMT
So Annie just ditched Kat for the summer. And Kat's homework book is still in her room.
I think there will be fallout.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Jan 8, 2011 0:12:43 GMT
I think her dad might have something to say about this.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Jan 5, 2011 18:46:17 GMT
This development makes the incident in Chapter 16 a little more interesting. In that fire is dangerous, covers everything, grows . . . in retrospect, this might be serving dual duty as a standalone story and as foreshadowing . . ..
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Dec 27, 2010 18:08:26 GMT
No one has pointed this out yet, to my surprise: Several people have said Annie's statement isn't a big reveal, or that Coyote already knows it, but it strikes me that while Coyote knew that Renard loved Surma, he very likely has no idea that Surma pretended to return his affections late in the game in a gambit to get him into the court. He sounded genuine when he spoke of Surma with affection; I think it might be a tremendous betrayal, to Coyote, that a medium he trusted would come into his forest and fake affections for his closest "brother" in order to aid his capture. I think, so far, Coyote has written off Renard's capture as basically Renard's fault; he chose to enter the Court of his own will, after all, and while he's heartbroken that Renard was tricked and captured, he feels that the Court abided by the rules of fair play. Finding out that Surma used her position to lie may change things dramatically. I came here to posit this if nobody had already (but you did). It could be that Coyote was just posturing in "The Fangs of Summertime" . . . when he said Reynard was "tricked!", he didn't really mean it, and he's now surprised to find out that his bluster was right. My other (conflicting) thought was that he may be looking at Annie in the last panel . . . sort of a "what the heck do you think you're trying to do, little girl" reaction. I myself am wondering what the heck she's trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Dec 16, 2010 15:08:59 GMT
Very little of what I've seen of Annie says "she would never hurt them." She's clearly willing to " hurt a fly", if it advances her ends. And she'll go for the below the belt shot, or throw 200 feet of fire at you, if she's annoyed at the moment. Maybe if "never" means "for the most part, unless I was in a bad mood or got defensive, or got really mad, or needed to get in touch with Muut again".
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Dec 10, 2010 13:54:22 GMT
Ysengrin can be very personable when spankies are not at issue.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Dec 1, 2010 17:35:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Dec 1, 2010 14:19:10 GMT
Can... can I do this? I put a cookie on Annie running to the cherry tree from way back when. No she is going to punch Muut in the bird face.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Dec 1, 2010 14:18:11 GMT
I'm guessing it's happened before. Surma probably had parents herself, after all.
Perhaps the "cure" Anthony was looking for was in part a scientific explanation for the "fire" transfer. Sort of a . . . rejecting everybody else's attitude of "that's the way it works" . . . determined to put an end to the cycle. All speculated, clearly.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Nov 19, 2010 14:08:47 GMT
On Monday's page, we learn that Annie has the (previously unrevealed) power to set things on fire with her mind by making that face.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Nov 10, 2010 14:15:47 GMT
I think the point is that it's funny because we only know two things about Jack's father, the incident with Surma and what Jack just said, and they are completely contradictory within the context. That's all. That's it. Laugh and enjoy the comic! Alternate theory: Hyland, Sr. had a crush on Surma, and that's the best way he knew to express it. It's how I acted in middle school.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Nov 9, 2010 5:09:20 GMT
The best reason I think Rey didn't mean to kill Annie is that Tom wanted people to wonder if he did mean to kill Annie. Why make people wonder if the most obvious answer is true? Oh it's even better than that Jayne. At some point during all this, I actually up and asked Tom right out on Formspring whether his intent was for people to be divided about whether or not Reynardine really intended to possess Annie, and he said yes. Effectively telling everyone what I've been saying from the start, which is not only can we not know which is true, but that we are not MEANT to know which is true, which invalidates every argument that presents "evidence" that one side or the other must be true. Oh and you know how these things go: I posted that Formspring answer to this thread, and it got either ignored or rationalized, and then the thread continued to grow, and everyone sort of forgot that the whole thing is academic hand-wringing. And again in a few pages, people will have again forgotten this fact, and we'll be right back here again. I remember that Formspring question. It did pretty much melt away any claims of "this is obviously the only possible interpretation". That said, since then Annie has been operating under the assumption that he tried to kill her, and he has not bothered to correct her. That could be taken either way, of course. But Antimony is in the "he tried to kill me" camp. She seems to have largely gotten over it.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Nov 6, 2010 19:06:25 GMT
...I do genuinely wonder if it was a spinal injury, though. :3 Ever since it became apparent that Annie's cheek cut was "permanent", (and since she got the cheek cut in the same chapter we saw her mother in the hospital with a mystery illnesss), I have wondered if Surma suffered a slightly more serious version of the etheric cheek cut.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Nov 6, 2010 18:50:28 GMT
Smit's powers seem to only increase higher-orders of information.
If he was reducing entropy at an atomic level, his digestive system wouldn't work. He'd be . . . "excreting" . . . high-energy molecules at high temperatures (or, if it went the other way, iron at absolute zero).
Whatever underpins Smit's ability, it recognizes that playing cards go in a certain order, but doesn't recognize that the atoms in the cards could operate at lower energy states if they were fused and fissed into iron. So the mechanism isn't concerned with quantum probability of individual atoms. It's concerned with whole, intact, printed playing cards.
So . . . high-level order, only.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Nov 4, 2010 4:22:53 GMT
but I think even she might be hesitant to tell Reynardine that the one good thing he knew from the court was a total lie and a deliberate act to lock him in the court. Well, there's always the test. The Court may have just been expecting him to give up his fox body to become human. Then there's no "locking him up", just welcoming as a new friend to the Court. Him killing and possessing an existing human would have been a very unpleasant surprise. Suddenly it's less "welcoming" and more "jailing".
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Nov 1, 2010 13:11:40 GMT
And look: she is floating. It is not far-fetched to speculate that she got that power from Coyote, or that Coyote can influence that ability. If he'd take away Surma's floatation powers at the wrong moment, she could easily break her spine... It's not unreasonable to guess that. She is doing it with her eyes open, even. But Coyote did tell Annie that if she practiced, she would be able to lift her own body . . . so it's also not unreasonable to assume Surma's just been practicing. As for what weakened Surma . . . maybe this isn't the place for it, but I've been wondering if perhaps she got something worse than a cheek scratch.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Oct 30, 2010 2:04:10 GMT
She died, and Reynard did nothing.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Oct 27, 2010 13:09:32 GMT
Why does Eglamore have a tail now?
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Oct 20, 2010 13:24:28 GMT
Lucky girl. There's no stout, bespectacled Spaniard lurking in the windows, plotting her eternal torment.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Oct 15, 2010 13:46:13 GMT
I don't think Annie's attitude is just because she can feel the love tonight. Last page, Parley said she could get them all down to the ravine. Now she's shown that she is currently able to control her teleporting, at least more than previously. Annie is changing the subject (to Steadman, which means research, which means relative safety) because she's scared to go back down there. I kinda like this theory.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Oct 13, 2010 15:30:55 GMT
If they are successful at freeing Jeanne, I suspect there will be some . . . other . . . consequences.
It's not fair that she's being used as a dam, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of water behind her.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Oct 11, 2010 15:22:44 GMT
His eyebrows!
They go up!
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Sept 29, 2010 20:13:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Sept 29, 2010 19:55:44 GMT
This thought has occurred to me as well. The entire concept of Jeanne's creation as impassable guardian is just too swiss-cheesed with logic holes. You may be taking Coyote's quote " nothing can pass" too literally. We know birds can fly over the river so its not absolutely impassable. Its just something happened to the water and whoever has tried to cross has died/disappeared. Possibly some things have crossed successfully but Coyote is speaking of the river and that something is going on with it. Its not even that its impassible, just anything that comes within reach of Jeanne will most likely be killed. She doesn't seem to care that the girls aren't trying to cross. Oh, Coyote wasn't the only one who brought up the idea of the waters being uncrossable. Granted, two of those are restricted to Jeanne being unable (theoretically) to cross and the third one is just saying "the waters must be fortified" . . . but taken in combination with Coyote's statement, it seems like maybe stuff can't cross the water. I'm old and my memory is fading but I'm pretty sure that Tom said on Formspring that Jeanne -is- the thing that makes the Waters impassible. EDIT: Yup, yup, you're right. I just found it. Dang.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Sept 29, 2010 18:45:40 GMT
But then Jeanne is a malevolent ghost etherically twisted to be a guard, so to her, her work is the most important thing in the world, even if the lack of piles of forest-creature-bones would indicate there can't be much of a threat. Do we actually know that Jeanne is what makes the waters un-crossable? I'm seeing that assumption, but I haven't ever shared it. It seems to me that one guard with a sword (who hates the people she's supposed to be defending) is a ridiculously bad way to make an entire giant river uncrossable. What would she do if two people tried crossing in different places? I think that the Court made the water itself uncrossable, using the arrow and (we now see) the green elf in some way . . . and that the ACT of making the water uncrossable did something to Jeanne (that maybe Jeanne herself isn't fully aware of). But the waters would still be uncrossable even if Jeanne was gone, or had never been there in the first place. She was bait, and nothing else. (And of course, this is all just speculation and I'd be fine if I was wrong.)
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Sept 29, 2010 15:05:51 GMT
Jeanne's words raise an intriguing question. Gunnerkrigg Court owes its safety to her death, a sacrifice that she did not consent to. The Founders who arranged it are long since dead, of course, and the present residents of the Court weren't even born at the time. But their safety and protection stems from her murder, making them the beneficiaries of the crime. So should they be punished for it? On the one hand, they did not commit it; on the other hand, letting them continue to enjoy their safety thanks to Jeanne's protection would reward the crime. It's a tangle I can't see an easy answer for, and certainly wouldn't want to be the judge on that case. I don't think it's a crime to benefit from somebody else's actions, so I don't see why you would punish somebody just for benefiting, and for no other reason. And besides, it can't be made right. No matter what anybody now does, Jeanne and her lover will still have been killed, and no amount of revenge killing will un-kill either one of them. Even if Jeanne executed everyone in the court and razed it to the ground, she and her lover will still have been killed . . . and she will not have so much as injured even one of the people responsible for her death.
|
|